Commitments And Contingencies
|6 Months Ended|
Jun. 30, 2018
|Commitments And Contingencies [Abstract]|
|Commitments And Contingencies||
11. Commitments and Contingencies
In the ordinary course of business, BBX Capital and its subsidiaries are parties to lawsuits as plaintiff or defendant involving its operations and activities. Bluegreen is subject to claims or proceedings from time to time relating to the purchase, sale, marketing, or financing of VOIs or other business activities. Additionally, from time to time in the ordinary course of business, the Company is involved in disputes with existing and former employees, vendors, taxing jurisdictions and various other parties, and Bluegreen also receives individual consumer complaints, as well as complaints received through regulatory and consumer agencies, including Offices of State Attorneys General. The Company takes these matters seriously and attempts to resolve any such issues as they arise.
Adverse judgements and the costs of defending or resolving legal claims may be substantial and may have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial statements. Management is not at this time able to estimate a range of reasonably possible losses with respect to matters in which it is reasonably possible that a loss will occur. In certain matters, management is unable to estimate the loss or reasonable range of loss until additional developments provide information sufficient to support an assessment of the loss or reasonable range of loss. Frequently in these matters, the claims are broad, and the plaintiffs have not quantified or factually supported their claim.
BBX Capital Litigation
Securities and Exchange Commission Complaint
In 2012, the SEC brought an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against BCC and Alan B. Levan, BCC’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. Following an initial trial in 2014 and the reversal on appeal of certain judgments of the district court by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, a second trial was held in 2017, and on May 8, 2017, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of BCC and Mr. Levan and against the SEC on all counts.
In connection with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ reversal of certain judgments in the first trial, which became final on January 31, 2017, and the resolution of the matter in favor of BCC and Mr. Levan in the second trial, BBX Capital received legal fees and costs reimbursements from its insurance carrier for the six months ended June 30, 2017 of approximately $5.0 million as well as the release of a $4.6 million penalty assessed against BCC in the first trial. The legal fees and costs reimbursements and the release of the penalty are reflected in the Company’s condensed consolidated statement of operations in “Reimbursements of litigation costs and penalty” for the six months ended June 30, 2017.
On August 10, 2016, Shiva Stein filed a lawsuit against the Company, BBX Merger Sub, LLC, BCC and the members of BCC’s board of directors, which seeks to establish a class of BCC’s shareholders and challenges the Merger. The plaintiff asserts that the Merger consideration undervalues BCC and is unfair to BCC’s public shareholders, that the sales process was unfair and that BCC’s directors breached their fiduciary duties of care, loyalty and candor owed to the public shareholders of BCC because, among other reasons, they failed to take steps to maximize the value of BCC to its public shareholders and instead diverted consideration to themselves. The lawsuit also alleges that BBX Capital, as the controlling shareholder of BCC, breached its fiduciary duties of care, loyalty and candor owed to the public shareholders of BCC by utilizing confidential, non-public information to formulate the Merger consideration and not acting in the best interests of BCC’s public shareholders. In addition, the lawsuit includes a cause of action against BCC, the Company and Merger Sub for aiding and abetting the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The lawsuit requested that the court grant an injunction blocking the proposed Merger or, if the proposed Merger is completed, rescind the transaction or award damages as determined by the court. On September 15, 2016, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint. On November 21, 2016, the Court issued an order granting the Motion to Dismiss with prejudice. Plaintiff appealed the Court’s order dismissing the amended complaint to the Fourth District Court of Appeals, and on March 21, 2018, the Fourth District Court of Appeals issued an opinion affirming the dismissal of the action. The time period for plaintiff to appeal the Fourth District Court of Appeals ruling has lapsed.
The following is a description of certain ongoing litigation matters:
Commencing in 2015, it came to Bluegreen’s attention that its collection efforts with respect to its VOI notes receivable were being impacted by a then emerging industry-wide trend involving the receipt of “cease and desist” letters from attorneys purporting to represent certain VOI owners. Following receipt of these letters, Bluegreen is unable to contact the owners unless allowed by law. Bluegreen believes these attorneys have encouraged such owners to become delinquent and ultimately default on their obligations and that such actions and Bluegreen’s inability to contact the owners are a primary contributor to the increase in its annual default rates. Bluegreen’s average annual default rates have increased from 6.9% in 2015 to 8.4% in 2018. Bluegreen also estimates that approximately 15.4% of the total delinquencies on its VOI notes receivable as of June 30, 2018 related to VOI notes receivable subject to these letters. Bluegreen has in a number of cases pursued, and may in the future pursue, legal action against the VOI owners.
On August 24, 2016, Whitney Paxton and Jeff Reeser filed a lawsuit against Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited, Inc. (“BVU”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bluegreen, and certain of its employees, seeking to establish a class action of former and current employees of BVU and alleging violations of plaintiffs’ rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (the “FLSA”) and breach of contract. The lawsuit also claims that the defendants terminated plaintiff Whitney Paxton as retaliation for her complaints about alleged violations of the FLSA. The lawsuit seeks damages in the amount of the unpaid compensation owed to the plaintiffs. During July 2017, a magistrate judge entered a report and recommendation that the plaintiffs’ motion to conditionally certify collective action and facilitate notice to potential class members be granted with respect to certain employees and denied as to others. During September 2017, the judge accepted the recommendation and granted preliminary approval of class certification. Based on that conditional class certification, all potential class members were provided Consent Forms to opt-in to the lawsuit, which opt-in period has since expired, and a set number of opt-ins has been determined. Class-wide discovery was subsequently served and plaintiffs filed a Motion for Protective Order which is pending. Bluegreen intends to seek to compel 59 of the currently named opt-in plaintiffs to submit their respective claims to arbitration on an individual basis. Bluegreen believes that the lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend the action.
On September 22, 2017, Stephen Potje, Tamela Potje, Sharon Davis, Beafus Davis, Matthew Baldwin, Tammy Baldwin, Arnor Lee, Angela Lee, Gretchen Brown, Paul Brown, Jeremy Estrada, Emily Estrada, Guillermo Astorga Jr., Michael Oliver, Carrie Oliver, Russell Walters, Elaine Walters, and Mike Ericson, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, filed a purported class action lawsuit against Bluegreen which asserted claims for alleged violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and the Florida False Advertising Law. In the complaint, the plaintiffs alleged the making of false representations in connection with Bluegreen’s sales of VOIs, including representations regarding the ability to use points for stays or other experiences with other vacation providers, the ability to cancel VOI purchases and receive a refund of the purchase price and the ability to roll over unused points and that annual maintenance fees would not increase. The complaint sought to establish a class of consumers who, since the beginning of the applicable statute of limitations, purchased VOIs from Bluegreen, had their annual maintenance fees relating to Bluegreen VOIs increased, or were unable to roll over their unused points to the next calendar year. The plaintiffs sought damages in the amount alleged to have been improperly obtained by Bluegreen, as well as any statutory enhanced damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and equitable and injunctive relief. On November 20, 2017, Bluegreen moved to dismiss the complaint and, in response, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint dropping the claims relating to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and adding claims for fraud in the inducement and violation of the Florida Vacation Plan and Timesharing Act. On March 20, 2018, the plaintiffs withdrew their motion for class action certification and on March 23, 2018, the court ordered dismissal of the suit. On April 24, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a new lawsuit against BVU, for substantially the same claims, but only on behalf of the 18 named individuals and not as a class action. Bluegreen believes that the lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend the action.
On January 4, 2018, Gordon Siu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a lawsuit against BVU and others, Choice Hotels International, Inc. which asserted claims for alleged violations of California law that relates to the recording of telephone conversations with consumers. Plaintiff alleges that after staying at a Choice Hotels resort, defendants placed a telemarketing call to plaintiff to sell the Choice Hotels customer loyalty program and a vacation package at a Choice hotel via the Bluegreen Getaways vacation package program. Plaintiff alleges that he was not timely informed that the phone conversation was being recorded and is seeking certification of a class comprised of other persons recorded on calls without their consent within one year before the filing of the original complaint. After BVU moved to dismiss the complaint, plaintiff amended his complaint to dismiss one of the two causes of action in the original complaint on the basis that that particular statute only concerns land line phones. Plaintiff and Choice agreed to a confidential settlement and Choice has been dismissed from this lawsuit. Plaintiff seeks money damages and injunctive relief. Bluegreen believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend the action.
On May 3, 2018, Katja Anderson and George Galloway, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, filed a lawsuit against Bluegreen which asserted violations of the Telephone Consumer Practices Act. The plaintiffs claim that they received multiple telemarketing calls in the spring of 2015 despite their requests not to be called. Plaintiffs seek certification of a class of individuals in the United States who received more than one telephone call made by Bluegreen or on its behalf within a 12-month period; to a telephone number that has been registered with the National Do Not Call Registry for at least 30 days. Plaintiffs seek money damages, attorneys’ fees and a court order requiring Bluegreen to cease all unsolicited telephone calling activities. Bluegreen has moved to dismiss the lawsuit, and the motion is pending. Bluegreen believes the lawsuit is without merit and intend to vigorously defend the action.
On June 28, 2018, Melissa S. Landon, Edward P. Landon, Shane Auxier and Mu Hpare, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a purported class action lawsuit against Bluegreen and BVU asserting claims for alleged violations of the Wisconsin Timeshare Act, Wisconsin law prohibiting illegal referral selling, and Wisconsin law prohibiting illegal attorney’s fee provisions. Plaintiffs allegations include that Bluegreen failed to disclose the identity of the seller of real property at the beginning of its initial contact with the purchaser; that Bluegreen misrepresented who the seller of the real property was; that Bluegreen misrepresented the buyer’s right to cancel; that Bluegreen included an illegal attorney’s fee provision in its sales document(s); that Bluegreen offered an illegal “today only” incentive to purchase; and that Bluegreen utilizes an illegal referral selling program to induce the sale of VOIs. Plaintiffs seek certification of a class consisting of all persons who, in Wisconsin, purchased from Bluegreen one or more VOIs within six years prior to the filing of this lawsuit. Plaintiffs seek statutory damages, attorneys’ fees and injunctive relief. Bluegreen believes the lawsuit is without merit and intend to vigorously defend the action.
The following is a description of certain commitments, contingencies, and guarantees:
In lieu of paying maintenance fees for unsold VOI inventory, Bluegreen provides subsidies to certain HOAs to provide funds to operate and maintain vacation ownership properties in excess of assessments collected from owners of the VOIs. During the six months ended June 30, 2018 and 2017, Bluegreen made payments related to such subsidies of $0.6 million and $0.1 million, respectively. As of June 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017, Bluegreen had $4.6 million and $0, respectively, accrued for such subsidies included in other liabilities in the Company’s condensed consolidated statements of financial condition. As of June 30, 2018, Bluegreen was providing subsidies to ten HOAs.
In October 2013, Bluegreen entered into an agreement to purchase from an unaffiliated third party completed VOI inventory at the Lake Eve Resort in Orlando, Florida over a five-year period. The total purchase commitment was $35.1 million. During the six months ended June 30, 2018, Bluegreen paid the final $4.6 million under this agreement.
In August 2016, BBX Capital entered into a severance arrangement with a former executive pursuant to which the executive is entitled to receive $3.7 million in cash payments over a three year period ending in August 2019. As of June 30, 2018, the Company had a $1.2 million liability remaining under this arrangement.
In September 2017, Bluegreen entered into an agreement with a former executive in connection with his retirement pursuant to which the executive is entitled to receive $2.9 million in cash payments through March 2019. As of June 30, 2018, Bluegreen had a $1.6 million liability remaining under this arrangement. During the second half of 2017, Bluegreen also commenced an initiative designed to streamline their operations in certain areas to facilitate future growth. Such initiative resulted in $5.8 million of severance accrued as of December 31, 2017 and $0.6 million accrued as of June 30, 2018, included in other liabilities in the Company’s condensed consolidated statement of financial condition.
In March 2018, Bluegreen approved in principle the material terms of an Executive Leadership Incentive Plan (the “ELIP”), which provides for the grant of cash-settled performance units (“Performance Units”) and cash-settled stock appreciation rights (“SARs”) to participants in the ELIP. It is contemplated that each participant will be granted award opportunities representing a percentage of his or her base salary (the “Target LTI”). In the case of certain of Bluegreen’s executive officers, the award will be allocated 30% to SARs and 70% to Performance Units. For other participants, including Bluegreen’s senior vice presidents, certain vice presidents and certain other employees, the award will be 100% in Performance Units. Performance Units will represent the right of the recipient to receive a cash payment based on the achievement of levels of EBITDA and return on invested capital (“ROIC”) during a two-year period. SARs granted under the ELIP, upon exercise after vesting, will entitle the holder to a cash payment in an amount equal to the excess of the market price of Bluegreen’s common stock on the date of exercise over the exercise price of the SAR. The SARs will vest in equal annual installments on the first, second and third anniversary of the date of grant and have a five-year term. In March 2018, Bluegreen’s compensation committee approved grants of 639,643 SARs at an exercise price of $19.72 per share to certain members of Bluegreen’s management pursuant to this plan. As of June 30, 2018, Bluegreen had $2.1 million accrued for the ELIP included in other liabilities in the Company’s condensed consolidated statement of financial condition.
Bluegreen has an exclusive marketing agreement with Bass Pro, a nationally-recognized retailer of fishing, marine, hunting, camping and sports gear, that provides Bluegreen with the right to market and sell vacation packages at kiosks in each of Bass Pro’s retail locations and through certain other means. As of June 30, 2018, Bluegreen was selling vacation packages in 68 of Bass Pro’s stores. Bluegreen compensates Bass Pro based on VOI sales generated through the program. No compensation is paid to Bass Pro under the agreement on sales made at Bluegreen/Big Cedar Vacations’ resorts. During the six months ended June 30, 2018 and 2017, VOI sales to prospects and leads generated by the agreement with Bass Pro accounted for approximately 14% and 15%, respectively, of Bluegreen’s VOI sales volume. On October 9, 2017, Bass Pro advised Bluegreen that it believed the amounts paid to it as VOI sales commissions should not have been adjusted for certain purchaser defaults. Bluegreen previously had informed Bass Pro that the aggregate amount of such adjustments for defaults charged back to Bass Pro between January 2008 and June 2017 totaled approximately $4.8 million. While Bluegreen believed and continues to believe that these adjustments were appropriate and consistent with both the terms and the intent of the agreements with Bass Pro, in October 2017, in order to demonstrate its good faith, Bluegreen paid the amount at issue to Bass Pro pending future resolution of the matter. Bluegreen has continued to make payments to Bass Pro as it believes appropriate and consistent with the agreements, which continue to be adjusted for defaults, and Bass Pro has accepted these payments as historically calculated. On July 23, 2018, Bass Pro again raised the issue regarding adjustments for defaults and requested additional information regarding the calculation of commissions payable to Bass Pro and other amounts payable under the agreements, including reimbursements paid to Bluegreen. The issues raised by Bass Pro have not impacted current operations under the marketing agreement or relative to Bluegreen/Big Cedar Vacations. Bluegreen intends to formally respond to Bass Pro with its view on these matters and intends to provide Bass Pro with all appropriately requested information. Bluegreen’s agreements with Bass Pro provide that, in the event of any dispute or disagreement between the parties, either party may give notice and thereafter the CEOs of the parties are required to communicate promptly with each other with a view to resolving the dispute or disagreement. Accordingly, it is anticipated that such process will be followed in good faith and that the parties will appropriately resolve any issues. While Bluegreen does not believe that any material additional amounts are due to Bass Pro as a result of these matters, any change in the calculations utilized in connection with payments or reimbursements required under the agreements could impact future results.
The entire disclosure for commitments, contingencies, and guarantees.
Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef